Stafford v. Russell

• Decision Date: 14 April 1953
• Citation: 117 Cal.App.2d 319,255 P.2d 872
• Parties: STAFFORD v. RUSSELL et al. Civ. 19420.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 872

255 P.2d 872

117 Cal.App.2d 319

STAFFORD v. RUSSELL et al.

Civ. 19420.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

April 14, 1953.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1953.

Hearing Denied June 11, 1953.

Guy N. Stafford in propria persona.

Lawrence L. Otis, Gilbert E. Harris, James F. Healey, Jr., Harold Arman, Vaughan, Brandlin & Wehrle, by Warren J. Lane and J. R. Vaughan, Los Angeles, for respondents.

McCOMB, Justice.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury in an action for declaratory relief, an accounting, damages and plea to quiet title to certain real property, plaintiff appeals.

The subject of this action is a parcel of land in Los Angeles County comprising 10 lots. Plaintiff, by reason of an alleged one-time ownership of one of the lots, contends that he is the successor to interests created under an oil lease executed in 1924 by the then owners of the lots. Defendants Mary Pratt Sanders, N. Louise Kimball, Joseph R. Vaughan, John and Anna Madsen, Bessie Weber, Lulu Reddish, Beatrice Achstetter and William and Catherine Van Beek are owners, part owners or one-time owners of one or more of the lots in question. Defendant Russell is an owner of an oil and gas lease executed and ratified by his co-defendants and a producer of oil and gas from a well located on one of the lots.

The facts pertaining to the ownership of the lots and plaintiff's connection therewith are fully set forth in Coburg Oil Co. v. Russell, 100 Cal.App.2d 200, 201 et seq., 223 P.2d 305 (hearing denied by the Supreme Court).

In a prior action in which the lots here in question were involved (L.A.Co.Sup.Ct. No. 478,480), title was quieted in Mary Pratt Sanders and others as against the Howard Park Company and Coburg Oil Company, the latter of which plaintiff herein was the principal stockholder and guiding hand. The above litigation also included an appeal wherein the question of the validity of the judgment in the quiet title action was questioned. (Sanders v. Howard Park Co., 86 Cal.App.2d 721, 195 P.2d 898.)

In the present case plaintiff reiterates the allegations of the previous two actions and raises the same questions that were previously raised in the prior actions where the rulings were adverse to him. Such adverse rulings are binding upon plaintiff herein and need not further be considered for the reason that though he was not a nominal party to the prior actions the Coburg Oil Company was, and plaintiff had a proprietary and financial interest in the judgment and controlled the Coburg Oil Company's conduct in the actions.

Therefore this rule is applicable: A person who is not a party to an action but who controls the action is bound by the judgment where he has a proprietary or financial interest in the judgment or in the determination of a question of fact or law with reference to the same subject matter or transaction. (Dillard v. McKnight, 34 Cal.2d 209, 216, 209 P.2d 387, 11 A.L.R.2d 835.)

There is one...